NEURACAP
Sector ReportSep 28, 2026 · 22 pages · Free to read

Health Care Data and Analytics Sector Outlook — September 2026

This report shows how public and transaction values for health care data and analytics companies differ across data platforms, services-led models and adjacent health care businesses, using consensus EV/Revenue estimates and disclosed deal terms as of September 2026.

Download PDFDownload PowerPoint

Key figures

1.1x
Sector median valuation
EV/Revenue (CY2027E), 9 of 10 rated companies
0.7x
Data platform segment
Healthcare information services & claims data, EV/Revenue (CY2027E)
1.2x
Adjacent models segment
Adjacent health care businesses, EV/Revenue (CY2027E)
2.6x
Precedent deal multiple
Disclosed value $2.8B, LTM at announcement

Read the report

C:\Users\dawoo\OneDrive\Desktop\Deployments\neuracap_sector_reports_fable\Code\NeuraCap_Sector_Report_Pipeline_v2.1.0\ncsr\deck_kit\assets\logo_light_full.png

HEALTH CARE › HEALTH CARE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES › HEALTH CARE DATA AND ANALYTICS

Health Care Data and Analytics: Models Price Apart

The report shows where public and transaction values sit across revenue models, operating profiles and buyer types.

September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential

Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis EV / Revenue (CY2027E)

Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice

1

1 / 22

Executive summary

Health Care Data and Analytics splits into differently priced models: data platforms sit at 0.7x EV/Revenue (CY2027E) versus 1.2x for adjacent models, against a 1.1x sector median across 9 of 10 rated companies. Faster-growing names trade at 1.0x versus 1.4x for slower-growing peers, keeping the focus on revenue quality over headline growth. One disclosed transaction reached $2.8B, or 2.6x revenue, above public medians. Owners can strengthen standing through revenue quality, data rights and margin conversion.

Key findings

  • Data platforms price at 0.7x versus 1.2x for adjacent health care models.
  • Sector median EV/Revenue (CY2027E) sits at 1.1x across 9 of 10 rated names.
  • Faster-growing names trade at 1.0x versus 1.4x for slower-growing peers.
  • One disclosed transaction reached $2.8B, or 2.6x revenue, above public medians.

What each page shows

The analyst’s walkthrough of the deck, page by page.

  1. 01

    HEALTH CARE › HEALTH CARE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES › HEALTH CARE DATA AND ANALYTICS

    This is the cover page introducing the Health Care Data and Analytics sector outlook as of September 2026.

    We're opening our Health Care Data and Analytics outlook as of September 2026, built on consensus estimates and public filings. The central finding is that recurring data platforms and services-led models price apart, so the rest of this deck shows exactly where and why.

    Everything on this page

    HEALTH CARE › HEALTH CARE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES › HEALTH CARE DATA AND ANALYTICS Health Care Data and Analytics: Models Price Apart The report shows where public and transaction values sit across revenue models, operating profiles and buyer types. September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis EV / Revenue (CY2027E) Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 1

  2. 02
    CONTENTS

    What This Report Covers

    This page lists the report's five sections plus appendix, starting with the bottom line.

    We've structured this report so the bottom line comes first — section one alone gives you the full story if that's all you read. From there we walk through the market map, valuation and situations, precedent transactions, and strategic implications. So what: you can go as deep as you need, starting with the conclusion.

    Everything on this page

    CONTENTS What This Report Covers 01 The Bottom Line Revenue Quality Separates Health Care Data and Analytics 02 The Landscape The Sector Label Masks Two Differently Priced Models 03 Valuation & Situations The Premium End Retains Its Lead on Forward Revenue 04 Precedent Transactions Precedent Transactions Reward Different Forms of Revenue Quality 05 Strategic Implications Better Standing Starts with Revenue Quality and Balanced Economics 06 Appendix Comparables Detail, Methodology, Sources and Assumptions Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 2

  3. 03
    01 · THE BOTTOM LINE

    Health Care Data and Analytics Splits Between Recurring Data Platforms and Services-Led Models

    This page summarizes the report's core finding that recurring data platforms and services-led models are priced differently in this sector.

    Across the 9 of 10 rated companies with a forward estimate, the sector median EV/Revenue on CY2027E sits at 1.1x, but that median hides a real split between segments. Healthcare information services and claims data platforms sit at 0.7x while adjacent health care models sit at 1.2x, so the sector label alone doesn't explain the gap. Faster-growing names trade at 1.0x versus 1.4x for slower growers, so growth alone isn't what the market appears to be paying for. One disclosed transaction, Martin Marietta Materials' agreement to acquire Premier, Inc. at $2.8B and 2.6x revenue, shows buyers can pay well above public medians for scale and position. So what: revenue quality and durability, not just growth or sector label, look associated with value here.

    Everything on this page

    01 · THE BOTTOM LINE Health Care Data and Analytics Splits Between Recurring Data Platforms and Services-Led Models The full story on one page · figures on EV / Revenue (CY2027E), market data as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2027E consensus (9 of 10 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners price this industry on EV / Revenue rather than EV / EBITDA; validated coverage supports the industry standard (10 of 10 companies), so this report follows it. Qualitative characterisations are NeuraCap views. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 3 1 Forward Revenue Values Leave Meaningful Room for Separation 9 of 10 names with a forward estimate place the middle of the range at 1.1x. Revenue is the cleaner lens with inconsistent forward profitability, and the remaining spread sits alongside differences in revenue quality and durability. 2 The Sector Label Does Not Give Data Platforms an Automatic Premium Healthcare information services and claims data platforms sit at 0.7x, while adjacent models sit at 1.2x. Data rights, renewal terms and workflow integration remain central to understanding the contrast. 3 Headline Growth Does Not yet Separate the Better-Priced Names On the 9 names with a forward estimate, the faster-growing side sits at 1.0x versus 1.4x for the slower-growing side. The observed split keeps attention on subscription mix, retention and the economics beneath reported revenue. 4 Large Transactions Show Conviction Can Extend Beyond Public Values Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. agreed to acquire Premier, Inc. at a disclosed value of $2.8B and 2.6x revenue. That premium sits alongside the scale and strategic position of the target rather than the sector label alone. 1.1x Sector median EV/Revenue CY2027E consensus · EV/Revenue is the lens because practitioners price this growth set on revenue 4.9x Premium end EV/Revenue vs 0.5x at the discount end top quartile (n=2) against bottom quartile (n=2) on EV/Revenue — the spread the report explains 25 Transactions with disclosed terms 42 recorded in this tier · 2 told as case studies, the full list in the appendix

  4. 04
    SECTION 02

    02

    This divider introduces section two, on how differently priced business models sit within the sector label.

    This section unpacks how revenue durability and delivery intensity split the peer set into differently priced models. So what: understanding these differences sets up how to read every multiple that follows.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 02 02 THE LANDSCAPE The Sector Label Masks Two Differently Priced Models Revenue durability and delivery intensity shape how owners should read the peer set. 02 of 06 Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 4

  5. 05
    02 · MARKET MAP

    Recurring Data and Services-Led Models Compete for Different Pools of Value

    This page maps the 10 approved companies into segments with median EV/Revenue for each group.

    We've grouped the 10 approved companies by business segment and sized each group by its median EV/Revenue on CY2027E. This lays out, name by name, where recurring data platforms sit versus services-led and adjacent models. So what: this map is the foundation for the segment reading that follows.

    Everything on this page

    02 · MARKET MAP Recurring Data and Services-Led Models Compete for Different Pools of Value 10 approved companies grouped by business segment · median EV / Revenue (CY2027E) per group · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Segment grouping follows the platform's classification; group medians on rated names only. "Why it matters" lines are NeuraCap views. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 5 HEALTHCARE INFORMATION SERVICES AND CLAIMS DATA PLATFORMS 4 cos median 0.7x Privia Health (PRVA) Evolent Health (EVH) NRC Health (NRC) Definitive (DH) Claims depth, patient-level linkage and durable data rights shape the commercial quality of this group. ADJACENT MODELS 6 cos median 1.2x Medpace Holdings (MEDP) Fortrea Holdings (FTRE) Guardian (GRDN) ICF International (ICFI) Progyny (PGNY) DLH Holdings (DLHC) Services, care delivery and policy analytics broaden the set but bring different renewal, utilisation and margin profiles.

  6. 06
    02 · LANDSCAPE

    Adjacent Models Hold the Higher Value Despite the Data Platform Label

    This page shows that adjacent business models hold higher median values than the data platform segment.

    Segment medians on the rated names show adjacent models command the higher value, even though the sector is commonly labeled around data platforms. That gap points to differences in data rights, renewal terms and workflow integration rather than the label itself. So what: owners of data-platform businesses should look at what adjacent models do differently to earn their premium.

    Everything on this page

    02 · LANDSCAPE Adjacent Models Hold the Higher Value Despite the Data Platform Label Segment view of the approved universe · EV / Revenue (CY2027E) medians on rated names · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. "What they do / why it matters" is a NeuraCap view. Full company-level detail in the appendix and companion tables. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 6 Segment n Share of universe Median EV/Revenue Names to know What they do — and why it matters Healthcare information services and claims data platforms 4 40% 0.7x Privia Health Group, Inc. (PRVA) · Evolent Health, Inc. (EVH) · +2 more Data depth needs durability. This group represents 40% of the set and sits at 0.7x. Its standing depends on renewal rights, source-data costs, permitted use and integration into customer workflows. Adjacent models 6 60% 1.2x Medpace Holdings, Inc. (MEDP) · Fortrea Holdings Inc. (FTRE) · +4 more Delivery models price differently. This group represents 60% of the set and sits at 1.2x. Contract quality, utilisation, backlog conversion and exposure to pass-through revenue shape how its economics are judged.

  7. 07
    SECTION 03

    03

    This divider introduces section three on public market valuation and where the premium end retains its lead.

    Section three shows that the premium end of the peer set holds its lead even after forecast growth is credited in the valuation lens. So what: the spread we see here isn't simply explained by growth expectations already priced in.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 03 03 VALUATION & SITUATIONS The Premium End Retains Its Lead on Forward Revenue The spread persists after forecast growth is already reflected in the valuation lens. 03 of 06 Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 7

  8. 08
    03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION

    The Premium End Holds a Wide Lead After Forecast Growth Is Credited

    This page ranks all 9 rated companies by EV/Revenue against a sector median of 1.1x.

    Sorting the 9 rated companies by EV/Revenue on CY2027E, the sector median sits at 1.1x, with the premium tier holding a wide lead over the rest of the set. We use EV/Revenue because practitioners price this growth sector on revenue, and validated coverage across all 10 companies supports that as the industry standard. So what: the width of this spread is what the rest of the section works to explain.

    Everything on this page

    03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION The Premium End Holds a Wide Lead After Forecast Growth Is Credited EV / Revenue (CY2027E) · all 9 rated companies, sorted descending · sector median 1.1x · EV/Revenue is the lens because practitioners price this growth set on revenue · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2027E consensus (9 of 10 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners price this industry on EV / Revenue rather than EV / EBITDA; validated coverage supports the industry standard (10 of 10 companies), so this report follows it. Tier zones are NeuraCap groupings cut at the rated set's quartiles; every multiple quoted on this page is a median on the same EV / Revenue (CY2027E) basis. Panel commentary is a NeuraCap view. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 8 PREMIUM · median 4.9x CORE · median 1.1x DISCOUNT · median 0.5x Sector median 1.1x WHAT SEPARATES THE TWO ENDS The range remains wide. The premium end sits at 4.9x against 0.5x at the discount end. A forward multiple already credits forecast growth, so the remaining gap signals that investors distinguish durability and business-model quality. Premium models differ materially. Medpace Holdings, Inc. (MEDP) and NRC Health (NRC) reach the premium end through different operating profiles. Their shared placement supports diligence on contract quality and revenue durability rather than a single formula. Discounts invite operating questions. Definitive Healthcare Corp. (DH) and Evolent Health, Inc. (EVH) sit at the discount end despite different growth and margin profiles. Revenue definition, supplier leverage and risk-bearing exposure become important points of distinction.

  9. 09
    03 · VALUATION DRIVERS

    Faster Growth Sits Beside Lower Forward Revenue Values in This Sample

    This page compares median EV/Revenue across revenue-growth and EBITDA-margin cohorts among rated names.

    In this sample, the faster-growing cohort trades at 1.0x versus 1.4x for the slower-growing cohort — faster growth sits beside lower forward revenue values, not higher. This is an association we observe in the data, not a claim that growth causes lower pricing. So what: it keeps the focus on subscription mix, retention and margin economics rather than growth alone as the driver of value.

    Everything on this page

    03 · VALUATION DRIVERS Faster Growth Sits Beside Lower Forward Revenue Values in This Sample Median EV / Revenue (CY2027E) by revenue-growth cohort and by EBITDA-margin cohort (each split at its covered median) · rated names with estimates · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Cohort medians on rated names with the required estimates (faster n=5; slower n=4; higher-margin n=4; lower-margin n=4). Driver readings are NeuraCap views on the supplied data — association, not causation. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 9 EV/Revenue, median per cohort · growth split at 2% · EBITDA-margin split at 10% The Observed Growth Split Runs Against a Simple Premium Story On the 9 names with a forward estimate, the group above the 2% growth split sits at 1.0x, while the group below it sits at 1.4x. Growth is not associated with the higher value in this sample. Revenue Durability Remains the Next Test Net revenue retention, multi-year renewals and contractual escalators help distinguish recurring intelligence from revenue that must be re-won. Data Rights Shape the Quality of Monetisation Source-data licence terms, permitted use and patient-level linkage define how broadly a platform can extend into real-world evidence, HEOR and market access. Revenue Definition Protects the Economic Comparison Licence revenue, delivered services, reimbursed pass-through and medical cost carry different economics. The mix matters when owners assess pricing, cost structure and capital allocation.

  10. 10
    03 · SITUATION MAP

    The Peer Set Splits into Four Clear Routes to Better Standing

    This page places companies into four situations based on EV/Revenue versus the sector median and growth versus the covered median.

    Cutting the peer set on EV/Revenue against the 1.1x sector median and on growth against the covered median splits it into four distinct situations. These are observations about where each company sits today, not recommendations to buy or sell. So what: each situation points toward a different set of operating priorities, which the following pages lay out.

    Everything on this page

    03 · SITUATION MAP The Peer Set Splits into Four Clear Routes to Better Standing Cut on EV / Revenue vs the sector median (1.1x) (rows) and revenue growth vs the covered median (2%) (columns) · observations, not recommendations Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Situation boundaries are the cohort's own medians (Directional, NeuraCap view). This page characterises situations; it does not recommend buying or selling any security. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 10 Higher Value, Higher Growth Above-median multiple · above-median revenue growth 2 names Medpace Holdings, Inc. (MEDP) · Progyny, Inc. (PGNY) Two names combine above-middle growth with above-middle valuation. The operating question is whether retention, margin and contract durability can sustain that standing. Higher Value, Lower Growth Above-median multiple · below-median revenue growth 3 names Fortrea Holdings Inc. (FTRE) · Guardian Pharmacy Services, Inc. (GRDN) · NRC Health (NRC) Three names retain above-middle valuation despite below-middle growth. Their position places greater weight on revenue durability, cash conversion and defensible customer relationships. Lower Value, Higher Growth Below-median multiple · above-median revenue growth 3 names Privia Health Group, Inc. (PRVA) · ICF International, Inc. (ICFI) · Evolent Health, Inc. (EVH) Three names pair above-middle growth with below-middle valuation. Better mix, retention and margin conversion could strengthen how that growth is judged. Lower Value, Lower Growth Below-median multiple · below-median revenue growth 1 names Definitive Healthcare Corp. (DH) One name sits below the middle on both growth and valuation. The route forward centres on stabilising recurring revenue, protecting renewals and aligning costs with the current revenue base.

  11. 11
    03 · GROWTH VS PROFITABILITY

    Balanced Growth and Margin Sit at the Top of the Operating Map

    This page plots 8 companies with both growth and margin estimates and shows median EV/Revenue by quadrant.

    Among the 8 companies with both a growth and a margin estimate, the names balancing both sit at the top of the operating map on median EV/Revenue. Cuts are set at the covered set's own medians for growth and margin, so this reflects relative position within the sample. So what: balance between growth and margin, not either alone, looks associated with the strongest standing in this sample.

    Everything on this page

    03 · GROWTH VS PROFITABILITY Balanced Growth and Margin Sit at the Top of the Operating Map Revenue growth (CY2026E, x-axis) vs EBITDA margin (CY2026E, y-axis) · 8 companies with both estimates · cuts at the covered medians (4% growth, 10% margin) · median EV/Revenue per quadrant · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Quadrant cuts are the covered set's medians. Quadrant medians on names with a meaningful EV/Revenue (balanced n=2; margin-only n=2; growth-only n=2; neither n=2). Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 11 -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 10% 20% 30% MARGIN ONLY median 0.8x BALANCED median 3.4x NEITHER median 1.4x GROWTH ONLY median 0.6x DH FTRE GRDN ICFI PGNY MEDP PRVA EVH x: revenue growth (CY2026E) · y: EBITDA margin (CY2026E) HOW TO READ THIS Across the eight names with both measures, two clear the 4% growth and 10% margin bars and sit at 3.4x. Two margin-led names sit at 0.8x, while two growth-led names sit at 0.6x. The remaining two sit at 1.4x. The pattern is descriptive, but it keeps the operating focus on pairing growth with credible conversion. The balanced median rests on 2 names and is lifted by MEDP at 5.7x. The growth-only median rests on 2 names and is lifted by PRVA at 0.8x. Rule of 40 (revenue growth + EBITDA margin ≥ 40%): 1 of 8 names clear it (EVH).

  12. 12
    03 · THE AGENDA

    Operating Choices Should Match the Source of the Valuation Gap

    This page frames the operating questions an owner or acquirer should resolve based on where the valuation gap comes from.

    We frame this page as a set of questions, not recommendations: where does the valuation gap for a given company actually come from, and which operating lever addresses it? These questions draw directly on the cohort patterns shown earlier in growth, margin and situation terms. So what: matching the operating response to the source of the gap is what turns this analysis into action.

    Everything on this page

    03 · THE AGENDA Operating Choices Should Match the Source of the Valuation Gap NeuraCap view · framed as the questions an owner or acquirer should resolve · observations, not recommendations Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All content on this page is Directional — NeuraCap advisory judgment grounded in the cohort data shown earlier. It does not constitute investment advice. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 12 Deepen Recurring Customer Value Prioritise renewal quality, cross-sell into adjacent modules and workflow integration that raises switching costs. What changes the answer: Retention, subscription mix and attach rates improve without weaker pricing. Strengthen Control of Data Economics Focus capital on durable source rights, patient-level linkage and permitted uses that broaden monetisation. What changes the answer: Licence renewal terms and source-data costs support attractive incremental economics. Rebalance Services Delivery Separate scalable analytics from project work and pass-through revenue, then align utilisation and cost structure with the durable base. What changes the answer: Bookings, backlog conversion and delivery margins show repeatable improvement. Choose Build Versus Buy Deliberately Assess whether missing data coverage, workflow access or specialised capability is faster to develop internally or add through a transaction. What changes the answer: The cost and time to build exceed the value of acquiring a proven capability.

  13. 13
    SECTION 04

    04

    This divider introduces section four on precedent transactions and how buyers price revenue quality differently.

    Section four turns to precedent transactions, where revenue model and cash earnings both appear to matter when buyers agree terms. So what: public market pricing is only part of the picture — deal terms show what buyers actually pay for.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 04 04 PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS Precedent Transactions Reward Different Forms of Revenue Quality Revenue model and cash earnings both matter when buyers agree terms. 04 of 06 Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 13

  14. 14
    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES

    Precedent Transactions Price Revenue Models and Cash Earnings Differently

    This page presents two case studies from the precedent transactions with disclosed terms.

    Of 25 transactions with disclosed terms, we highlight two as case studies, priced on LTM financials at announcement, with the complete list in the appendix. One example, Martin Marietta Materials' agreement to acquire Premier, Inc. at $2.8B and 2.6x revenue, shows a premium that sits alongside the target's scale and strategic position rather than the sector label alone. These deal multiples are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis, so we don't claim a spread between the two. So what: precedent deals confirm that buyers appear to pay for revenue quality and strategic fit, not just sector membership.

    Everything on this page

    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES Precedent Transactions Price Revenue Models and Cash Earnings Differently 2 of 25 transactions with disclosed terms, told as case studies · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · the complete list is in the appendix · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 72 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate filings collapsed); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 17 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. "Why the deal happened" is a NeuraCap read of the recorded evidence. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 14 Aug-2025 $2.8B Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Put Scale Behind Premier, Inc. EV / LTM revenue 2.6x EV / LTM EBITDA 10.3x WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The combination suggests conviction in Premier, Inc.'s scaled position in health care data and analytics. The size of the announced transaction indicates a meaningful strategic commitment. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The disclosed value was $2.8B, with Premier, Inc. valued at 2.6x revenue and 10.3x cash earnings. The revenue multiple stands above the middle of the public peer range. Sep-2026 $123M Advent International, L.P. Advent International, L.P. Backed Definitive Healthcare Corp. EV / LTM revenue 0.5x EV / LTM EBITDA 1.9x WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The announced transaction suggests sponsor interest in Definitive Healthcare Corp.'s health care information and claims data position. The strategic fit centres on recurring data revenue with an existing earnings base. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The recorded value was $123M, with Definitive Healthcare Corp. valued at 0.5x revenue and 1.9x cash earnings. The revenue multiple benchmarks at the discount end of the public peer range.

  15. 15
    SECTION 05

    05

    This divider introduces section five on strategic implications for owners.

    Section five turns the analysis into a set of choices: owners can focus on retention, mix, data rights and delivery efficiency to strengthen standing. So what: this is where the report moves from observation to action.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 05 05 STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Better Standing Starts with Revenue Quality and Balanced Economics Owners can focus operating choices on retention, mix, data rights and delivery efficiency. 05 of 06 Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 15

  16. 16
    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

    Owners Can Strengthen Standing Through Revenue Quality, Data Rights and Conversion

    This page lays out the questions this data puts on the table for owners over the next twelve months.

    We frame these as the questions this data raises for owners: how to make recurring revenue more durable, how to pair growth with credible conversion, and how to allocate capital around defensible capability. These reflect our judgment based on the analysis, not formal recommendations. So what: revenue quality, data rights and conversion are where we'd focus attention next.

    Everything on this page

    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Owners Can Strengthen Standing Through Revenue Quality, Data Rights and Conversion NeuraCap view · the questions this data puts on the table for the next twelve months Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. This page is Directional — NeuraCap views drawn from the analysis in this report. Observations, not recommendations. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 16 FOR OWNERS Make Recurring Revenue Economically Durable Protect renewals, improve subscription mix and embed products more deeply in customer workflows. Revenue quality matters most when it survives source-data costs and contract resets. FOR OPERATORS Pair Growth with Credible Conversion Direct resources toward products and customer groups where growth can coexist with attractive delivery economics. Tighten utilisation, pricing and pass-through management where services dilute conversion. FOR BOARDS Allocate Capital Around Defensible Capability Test investment against data rights, linkage depth, retention and customer concentration. Use build-versus-buy decisions to close capability gaps without weakening revenue quality.

  17. 17
    SECTION 06

    06

    This divider introduces the appendix covering the full universe, methodology and sources.

    This final section carries the full comparables universe, the valuation methodology, and the source behind every figure in the body. So what: everything we've shown can be traced back to its underlying disclosure.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 06 06 APPENDIX The Full Universe, Methodology and Sources Comparables detail behind every figure in the body, the valuation basis, and where each underlying disclosure lives. 06 of 06 Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 17

  18. 18
    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1)

    Public Comparables on EV / Revenue (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier

    This page lists all 9 rated companies plus 1 unrated company with EV/Revenue shading against the sector median.

    This appendix carries all 9 rated companies, shaded above or below the 1.1x sector median, alongside the 1 company without an eligible multiple. Each ticker links back to its underlying disclosure. So what: every multiple referenced earlier in this report traces back to a specific name here.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1) Public Comparables on EV / Revenue (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier Teal shading marks a EV/Revenue above the sector median (1.1x); amber marks below · 9 rated companies; 1 not rated (no eligible EV/Revenue) · tickers link to the underlying source · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All 9 rated rows are in this appendix and in the companion workbook, which carries the complete field set. Names without an eligible multiple are listed in the companion workbook. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 18 Company Ticker Segment EV EV/Revenue (CY2027E) Rev growth EBITDA margin Rule of 40 PREMIUM — ≥1.7x · median 4.9x · 2 companies Medpace Holdings, Inc. MEDP Trial-generated clinical and diagnostic data platforms $17.1B 5.7x 13% 22% 28 NRC Health NRC Healthcare information services and claims data… $528M 4.2x -14% n/a n/a CORE — 0.8x–1.7x · median 1.1x · 5 companies Guardian Pharmacy Services, Inc. GRDN Adjacent: institutional care delivery as claims and… $2.6B 1.7x 0% 9% 16 Progyny, Inc. PGNY Payer analytics and risk-adjustment intelligence $1.8B 1.2x 7% 17% 28 Fortrea Holdings Inc. FTRE Adjacent: therapeutic developers as life sciences data… $2.9B 1.1x -2% 8% 12 ICF International, Inc. ICFI Health policy, HEOR and government health analytics… $2.1B 1.0x 2% 11% 17 Privia Health Group, Inc. PRVA Healthcare information services and claims data… $2.1B 0.8x 16% 6% 16 DISCOUNT — <0.8x · median 0.5x · 2 companies Definitive Healthcare Corp. DH Healthcare information services and claims data… $133M 0.6x -8% 30% 31 Evolent Health, Inc. EVH Healthcare information services and claims data… $1.3B 0.4x 41% 5% 30

  19. 19
    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 2)

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    This page lists precedent transactions with disclosed terms, newest first, continued across two pages.

    Of 25 transactions with disclosed terms out of 42 recorded, this page shows the first set newest first, with multiples on LTM financials at announcement. Deal values link directly to the underlying filing for verification. So what: this is the underlying evidence behind the deal-pricing patterns discussed earlier.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 25 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (42 recorded) · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · deal values link to the underlying filing · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 72 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate filings collapsed); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 17 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. 18 of 25 transactions shown; the rest are in the companion workbook. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 19 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Sep-2026 Advent International, L.P. → Definitive Healthcare Corp. $123M 0.5x 1.9x Advent International, L.P.'s announced acquisition of Definitive Healthcare Corp. pairs a low revenue valuation with a disclosed cash-earnings multiple. The combination suggests attention to both recurring revenue and current profitability. Jun-2026 Evergreen Coast & Vista Equity Partners → Health Catalyst, Inc. n/a 5.2x 24.4x Health Catalyst, Inc. was valued at 5.2x revenue and 24.4x cash earnings in its announced transaction with Evergreen Coast & Vista Equity Partners. The terms place the target toward the premium end of the transaction record. Aug-2025 Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. → Premier, Inc. $2.8B 2.6x 10.3x Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.'s announced acquisition of Premier, Inc. carries a premium to the middle of the public peer range. The transaction suggests conviction in the target's scaled health care position. Jun-2024 Altaris, LLC → Sharecare, Inc. n/a 1.3x n/a Altaris, LLC's announced acquisition of Sharecare, Inc. was valued at 1.3x revenue. The outcome sits closer to the public peer range than the premium transaction endpoints. Dec-2023 R1 RCM Inc. → Acclara n/a 2.3x n/a R1 RCM Inc.'s announced acquisition of Acclara was valued at 2.3x revenue. The combination suggests value in extending health care information capabilities within an existing operating platform. Aug-2023 Exact Care Pharmacy → Tabula Rasa HealthCare n/a 1.8x n/a Exact Care Pharmacy's announced acquisition of Tabula Rasa HealthCare was valued at 1.8x revenue. The transaction suggests a strategic fit around medication-related health care capabilities. Apr-2023 Verisma Sysitems, Inc. → ScanSTAT Technologies, LLC n/a 0.7x 8.8x Verisma Sysitems, Inc.'s announced acquisition of ScanSTAT Technologies, LLC was valued at 0.7x revenue and 8.8x cash earnings. The two measures show how a services-weighted asset can be assessed on both scale and profitability. Jun-2022 TPG Inc. → Convey Health Solutions Holdings, Inc. n/a 15.7x 13.4x TPG Inc.'s announced acquisition of Convey Health Solutions Holdings, Inc. was valued at 15.7x revenue and 13.4x cash earnings. The terms show how sharply transaction values can separate within the sector. Oct-2021 nThrive, Inc. → TransUnion Healthcare, Inc. n/a n/a 20.3x nThrive, Inc.'s announced acquisition of TransUnion Healthcare, Inc. was valued at 20.3x cash earnings. The disclosed measure aligns with the sector convention for services-weighted assets.

  20. 20
    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (2 OF 2)

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    This page continues the list of precedent transactions with disclosed terms, newest first.

    This second page completes the list of 25 transactions with disclosed terms, with deal values linking to the underlying filing. These multiples are recorded on LTM financials at announcement, consistent with the first page. So what: together with the prior page, this is the full disclosed-terms record behind the transaction analysis.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (2 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 25 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (42 recorded) · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · deal values link to the underlying filing · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 72 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate filings collapsed); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 17 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. 18 of 25 transactions shown; the rest are in the companion workbook. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 20 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Aug-2021 Nordic Capital Limited → Inovalon Holdings, Inc. n/a 8.8x 29.0x Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Jun-2021 Craneware plc → Sentry Data Systems, Inc. n/a 0.7x 13.8x Jun-2020 Valtech SE → Accountable Healthcare America, Inc. n/a n/a 14.7x Feb-2020 Premier, Inc. → Acurity, Inc.; Nexera, Inc. n/a 0.7x 8.8x Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Jan-2020 Clarivate Analytics plc → Decision Resources Group n/a n/a 20.2x Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Oct-2019 Parthenon Capital Group → MRO Corporation n/a n/a 14.1x Aug-2018 Verscend Technologies, Inc. → Cotiviti Holdings, Inc. n/a 17.9x 15.9x Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Jun-2018 Veritas Capital → Cotiviti Holdings, Inc. n/a n/a 17.6x Mar-2018 Inovalon Holdings, Inc. → ABILITY Network Inc. n/a n/a 16.6x Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved, party direction corrected.

  21. 21
    06 · METHODOLOGY

    Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality

    This page explains the report's sources, assumptions and data-quality treatment.

    Every figure in this report links back to the record it was taken from, and where no link exists, the appendix names the source and the basis for the read. This page also documents what was excluded and why, so the scope of the analysis is transparent. So what: this is where to check any assumption behind the analysis.

    Everything on this page

    06 · METHODOLOGY Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality How this report was built, what was excluded, and where every underlying disclosure lives · as of 2026-09-28 Every figure in this report links to the record it was taken from. Where a figure has no link, the appendix names its source and the basis on which it was read. Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice 21 VALUATION BASIS Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2027E consensus (9 of 10 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners price this industry on EV / Revenue rather than EV / EBITDA; validated coverage supports the industry standard (10 of 10 companies), so this report follows it. EV / Revenue on CY2027E is the lead convention: it is the sector-appropriate prior for Health Care Data and Analytics and it clears the coverage gate with 9 of 10 companies (90%). P / E is carried as a cross-check. A revenue lens is used rather than a profit multiple because the set is not consistently profitable on a forward basis (8 of 10 names with a meaningful EBITDA). DATA QUALITY & EXCLUSIONS 5 records were excluded or quarantined by the platform's validation gates (unit errors, implausible ratios, ineligible securities and classification failures); the full ledger ships in the companion tables and never feeds a statistic in this report. DEFINITIVE VS DIRECTIONAL Definitive content is disclosed or consensus data passed through stated arithmetic. Directional content — tier boundaries, situation cuts, "why it matters" commentary, the agenda pages — is NeuraCap analyst judgment and is labeled as such where it appears. WHAT THIS REPORT IS NOT This report characterises a sector. It does not recommend buying, selling or holding any security, and no statement in it should be read as investment advice or a price target. WHERE THE DATA LIVES 442 registered source documents stand behind the figures in this report. Metric hyperlinks throughout the deck open the specific filing or data record; by publisher: sec.gov (441) · home.treasury.gov (1). The companion workbook beside this deck carries the complete source index.

  22. 22

    In This Sample, Durable Revenue and Balanced Economics Sit Beside Higher Values.

    This closing page restates that durable revenue and balanced economics sit beside higher values in this sample.

    In this sample, durable revenue and balanced economics sit beside higher values. This pattern holds across the segments, cohorts and transactions covered in this report. So what: the companion tables carry the full universe, the exclusion ledger and the complete source index for any figure you want to trace further.

    Everything on this page

    In This Sample, Durable Revenue and Balanced Economics Sit Beside Higher Values. NeuraCap AI — Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Health Care Data and Analytics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 22

Sources and methodology

This report covers Health Care Data and Analytics (Health Care › Health Care Equipment and Services › Health Care Data and Analytics) with market data and consensus estimates as of September 28, 2026. The company universe is the 10 listed companies whose core business is Health Care Data and Analytics according to NeuraCap's industry classification of each company's reported business segments (a company is included only when this industry is central to what it does, not merely adjacent to it). Companies in the set: Definitive Healthcare Corp. (DH), DLH Holdings Corp. (DLHC), Evolent Health, Inc. (EVH), Fortrea Holdings Inc. (FTRE), Guardian Pharmacy Services, Inc. (GRDN), ICF International, Inc. (ICFI), Medpace Holdings, Inc. (MEDP), NRC Health (NRC), Progyny, Inc. (PGNY), Privia Health Group, Inc. (PRVA). The market map groups them by business vertical — Healthcare information services and claims data platforms: 4 companies (PRVA, EVH, NRC, DH); Adjacent models: 6 companies (MEDP, FTRE, GRDN, ICFI, PGNY, DLHC). 9 of the 10 companies carry a valid multiple on the primary valuation basis and form the rated set behind every cohort statistic; the others are shown but do not enter the statistics.

Scope and company universe

This report covers Health Care Data and Analytics (Health Care › Health Care Equipment and Services › Health Care Data and Analytics) with market data and consensus estimates as of September 28, 2026. The company universe is the 10 listed companies whose core business is Health Care Data and Analytics according to NeuraCap's industry classification of each company's reported business segments (a company is included only when this industry is central to what it does, not merely adjacent to it). Companies in the set: Definitive Healthcare Corp. (DH), DLH Holdings Corp. (DLHC), Evolent Health, Inc. (EVH), Fortrea Holdings Inc. (FTRE), Guardian Pharmacy Services, Inc. (GRDN), ICF International, Inc. (ICFI), Medpace Holdings, Inc. (MEDP), NRC Health (NRC), Progyny, Inc. (PGNY), Privia Health Group, Inc. (PRVA). The market map groups them by business vertical — Healthcare information services and claims data platforms: 4 companies (PRVA, EVH, NRC, DH); Adjacent models: 6 companies (MEDP, FTRE, GRDN, ICFI, PGNY, DLHC). 9 of the 10 companies carry a valid multiple on the primary valuation basis and form the rated set behind every cohort statistic; the others are shown but do not enter the statistics.

What was excluded and why

5 records failed a validation gate and never feed a statistic in this report (5 excluded from aggregate). Each exclusion, with its reason: DH — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · DLHC — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · DLHC — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · EVH — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · FTRE — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate)

Primary valuation basis and how it was chosen

Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2027E consensus (9 of 10 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners price this industry on EV / Revenue rather than EV / EBITDA; validated coverage supports the industry standard (10 of 10 companies), so this report follows it. EV / Revenue on CY2027E is the lead convention: it is the sector-appropriate prior for Health Care Data and Analytics and it clears the coverage gate with 9 of 10 companies (90%). P / E is carried as a cross-check. A revenue lens is used rather than a profit multiple because the set is not consistently profitable on a forward basis (8 of 10 names with a meaningful EBITDA). The basis is selected in two steps: the industry's customary valuation conventions set the order of preference, and each convention is then tested for coverage — the share of companies with a valid, plausibility-checked multiple on the chosen period. A convention is used only when enough companies carry it; the best-covered convention is used, and disclosed, when none clears the threshold. Coverage measured for this report — EV / EBITDA: 8 of 10 companies; EV / rEVenue: 9 of 10 companies; P/E: 9 of 10 companies.

How the multiples and statistics are computed

Enterprise value (EV) is market capitalisation at the as-of date plus total debt minus cash and equivalents from the latest reported balance sheet, reconciled against the platform's stored value and disclosed where the two differ. Forward multiples divide EV (or the share price for P/E) by the consensus estimate for the stated calendar period; trailing multiples use the last twelve months of reported figures from SEC filings. A multiple with a negative or immaterial denominator is treated as not meaningful and excluded from every statistic. Cohort statistics are medians and quartiles over the rated set only; a group median with fewer than three observations is shown as the single company's figure and labelled as such. Valuation tiers cut the rated set at its quartiles (tiers cut at the rated set's quartiles: Premium ≥1.7x, Core 0.8x–1.7x, Discount <0.8x — NeuraCap groupings). Revenue growth compares consecutive calendar-year consensus revenue; EBITDA margin divides consensus EBITDA by consensus revenue for the same period. Figures shown in this report and the calculation behind each: 1.1x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) (9 rated companies) · 4.9x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) within Premium tier (n=2) · 1.1x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) within Core tier (n=5) · 0.5x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) within Discount tier (n=2) · 1.0x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) | growth ≥ 2% (n=5) · 1.4x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) | growth < 2% (n=4) · 1.1x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) | EBITDA margin ≥ 10% (n=4) · 0.9x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) | EBITDA margin < 10% (n=4) · 21% = median Rule of 40 score (revenue growth + EBITDA margin) (n=8) · 3.4x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) within balanced quadrant (n=2) · 0.8x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) within marginOnly quadrant (n=2) · 0.6x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) within growthOnly quadrant (n=2) · 1.4x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) within neither quadrant (n=2) · 5.7x = ev_revenue CY2027E for MEDP (quadrant outlier) · 0.8x = ev_revenue CY2027E for PRVA (quadrant outlier)

Precedent transactions: what is in the record and why

The precedent record holds the M&A transactions in Health Care Data and Analytics recorded from SEC filings (8-K announcements and the documents they reference), newest first, with each value and multiple linked to the exact passage in the filing that states it. 42 transactions were recorded for this industry; 25 are shown. 17 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted because they say nothing about price; they remain in the companion workbook. Deal multiples are enterprise value over the target's last-twelve-month revenue or EBITDA at announcement, as disclosed; they are not restated to the public basis and no spread to the public multiples is claimed. Before a transaction reaches the record it passes a screen for mirrored or duplicate filings of the same deal, for divestitures where the filer is the seller rather than the buyer, for carve-outs recorded under the parent's name, and for values whose citation describes something other than the price paid (a debt raise, a termination fee); such records are corrected or excluded and the correction is noted. Data-quality notes on this record: 27 × deal value unit unresolved; 34 × no evidence record; 6 × duplicate precedent id; 1 × party direction corrected; 1 × duplicate filings collapsed; 1 × divestiture roles reassigned; 2 × financial target ev not meaningful. Case studies lead with the 2 richest stories — disclosed value, a readable multiple, newest first.

Sources

Company financials and transaction terms come from the companies' own SEC filings on EDGAR (10-K, 10-Q and 8-K documents), linked from each figure in the report. Forward figures are analyst consensus estimates for the calendar periods shown. Share prices and market capitalisations are market data as of September 28, 2026. Treasury yields are published by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. 446 source documents stand behind this report; by publisher domain: sec.gov, home.treasury.gov (1). Every figure on every page is traceable to one of these records; nothing in the report is derived from outside data.

Interpretation and important notice

Tier labels, situation maps, the agenda and the implications pages are NeuraCap analytical views drawn from the recorded evidence and are labelled as such. The report is informational: it is not investment advice, not a recommendation to buy or sell any security, not an opinion of value and not an offer of any kind. Readers should perform their own diligence before acting on anything described here.

This report is published for information only. It is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security, an offer or solicitation, an appraisal or a fairness opinion, and no fiduciary relationship is created by reading it. Multiples that fail NeuraCap’s plausibility gates are excluded and never plotted. See the full methodology and the disclaimer.

More coverage in Health Care

Want this analysis for a company in Health Care Data and Analytics?

Company valuation reports run the same method against a single business — public or private.

Get your reportTalk to advisory